The Myth of Sexual Compulsivity
MARTIN P. LEVINE, Ph.D. RICHARD R. TROIDEN, Ph.D.
Bloomfield College Miami University
This paper analyzes critically the newly discovered "conditions" of sexual addiction and sexual compulsion from the sociological perspec-tive of symbolic interactionism. We begin by describing the concepts of sexual addiction and sexual compulsion and by providing case studies of each "condition." We then discuss the cultural relativity of sexual con-duct, and identify features of the late 1970s' and 1980s' sociosexual landscape that encouraged a perception of nonrelational sex as patho-logical. We conclude by critically analyzing the concepts of sexual addic-tion and sexual compulsion. We demonstrate that the definiaddic-tions are conceptually flawed and that the criteria for these "conditions" are subjective and value laden. There is nothing inherently pathological in the conduct that is labeled sexually compulsive or addictive. Rather than referring to actual clinical entities, sexual addiction and compulsion refer to learned patterns of behavior that are stigmatized by dominant institutions.
KEY WORDS: Hypersexuality, Sexual Addiction, Sexual Compulsion, Sexual Dependency, Sexual Impulsivity
Since the 1960s, sociological thinking on mental illness has under-gone a radical transformation (Gallagher, 1987; Mumford, 1983; Scheff, 1984). Traditionally, sociologists accepted basic psychiatric and psychological assumptions about mental disorder; sociological inquiry focused on the social forces "relevant to the etiology, identifi-cation, distribution, incidence, and course of mental illness" (Fletcher, Manning, & Smith, 1974, p. 43). The emergence of the labeling (con-structionist or interactionist) perspective on deviance, however, altered this focus (Scheff, 1984). Recognizing the cultural relativity and social control aspects of defining behavior as mental illness (Schur, 1979), the labeling perspective (Fletcher, Manning, & Smith, 1974) challenged "the traditional medical explanations of mental ill-ness, the applicability of the disease concept to mental illill-ness, and the efficacy and value of psychiatric institutions and treatment tech-niques" (p. 43).
In rejecting a medical model that treats mental problems as diseases (Gove, 1970; Mumford, 1983, pp. 415-416; Scheff, 1984), labeling
This is a revised version of a paper presented at the annual meetings of the American Psychological Association, Washington, D.C., August 22-26, 1986. Requests for reprints should be addressed to Martin P. Levine, Department of Sociology, Bloomfield College, Bloomfield, N.J. 07003.
theorists joined forces with psychiatrists such as Thomas Szasz (1970) and R. D. Laing (1967), who argued similarly that mental illness is the outcome of socially created and applied judgments. Pointing to the sociohistorical variability that surrounds behaviors labeled as mental illness, interactionists (labeling theorists) argued that mental illness is a metaphor or a cultural construct rather than a clinical condition which people either possess or lack, a "medicalization" of normative departures (Conrad & Schneider, 1980). In a variation of Howard S. Becker's (1963) famous summary of the labeling approach to deviance, mental illness
is not a quality of the act the person commits, but rather a consequence of the application by others of rules and sanctions to an offender. The [mentally ill] person is one to whom that label has successfully been ap-plied; [mental illness] is a behavior that people so label. (p. 9)
Antimedical-model psychiatrists and labeling sociologists also examined the kinds of behavior that are called mental illness (Schur, 1979, pp. 58-64), and concluded that behavior designated as a symp-tom of mental disorder almost always involves conduct or beliefs that violate cultural definitions of what is or is not normal (Mechanic, 1969, p. 2). Because the lay public and even health care providers often dis-agree about which behaviors are or are not mental illnesses, Scheff (1984) classifies mental illness as a form of residual deviance, a social category that encompasses a hodgepodge of norm violations "for which the culture provides no explicit label" (p. 37). In a similar vein, Szasz (1970) argues that mental illness is simply a pejorative label for "problems in living" that deviate from "psychosocial and ethical stan-dards" (p. 15).
The constructionist reconceptualization of mental illness sparked a reevaluation of the role played by mental health practitioners, particu-larly psychiatrists and psychologists, in constructing or manu-facturing mental illness (Conrad & Schneider, 1980; Davis & Ander-son, 1983; Scheff, 1984; Szasz, 1980). According to this reconceptual-ization, mental health professionals are "imputational specialists" (Lofland, 1969); agents of social control whose function is to enforce conformity to the existing social order through the differential applica-tion of diagnostic labels (Becker, 1963, pp. 150-152; Schur, 1979, p. 63). U sing conformity to existing normative standards as the measure of mental health, clinicians with a medical perspective treat departures from norms as forms of mental illness, which justifies coercive treat-ment and institutionalization of offenders. In the words of Thomas Szasz (1970):
Among all the medical specialties, psychiatry is the only one whose job is to stigmatize people with moral judgments camouflaged as diagnoses and to imprison them under the guise of treatment. (p. 125)
This paper analyzes the newly "discovered" psychosexual "condi-tions" of "sexual addiction" and "sexual compulsion," using an inter-actionist or constructionist perspective. We argue that sexual addic-tion and sexual compulsion represent pseudoscientific codificaaddic-tions of prevailing erotic values rather than bona fide clinical entities. The con-cepts of sexual addiction and compulsion constitute an attempt to repathologize forms of erotic behavior that became acceptable in the 1960s and 1970s. To support our argument, we will discuss (1) the ways mental health professionals use the concepts of sexual addiction and sexual compulsion; (2) the cultural relativity of these diagnoses; (3) the social context in which these "disorders" emerged; and (4) the value laden and conceptually flawed manner in which these "condi-tions" are defined.
Usage of the Sexual Addiction and Compulsion Concepts Although the definitions of what constitutes sexual addiction and compulsion are ambiguous at present (Coleman, 1986), mental health practitioners commonly use the terms to describe a "lack of control over erotic impulses" (Barth & Kinder, 1987). So defined, sex addicts or sexual compulsives are people who feel driven to engage frequently in nonnormative sex, often with destructive consequences for their intimate relationships (e.g., marriages) and occupational roles (Carnes, 1983; Schwartz & Brasted, 1985; Quadland, 1985a, Quadland & Shattls, 1987).
Mental health professionals differ, however, in how they concep-tualize a lack of control over erotic impulses. Some classify it as an
addiction, likening it to chemical or food dependencies (Carnes, 1983;
Edwards, 1986; Goleman, 1984; Schwartz & Brasted, 1985). In this view,loneliness, low self-esteem, and anxiety cause individuals to lose control over their sexual behavior, which poses grave threats to on-going relationships and careers. Despite the risks, sex addicts engage in these practices because they offer temporary relief from psychic distress. This relief is described as a sexual "fix" or "high" similar to the ones obtained from illegal drugs, alcohol, or food.
Sexual addiction appears differently among men and women (Carnes, 1983; Schwartz & Brasted,1985); male sex addicts outnumber female addicts. Among men, the addiction is thought to cause uncon-trollable promiscuity, autoeroticism, transvestism, homosexuality, ex-hibitionism, voyeurism, fetishism, incest, child molestation, and rape. The following case history illustrates male sexual addiction:
Don was a politically prominent lawyer with a wife and three children. His addiction drove him into multiple affairs with other women (often juggling two or three at the same time), sexual relations with masseuses in massage parlors, and homosexual encounters in movie booths at adult book stores. Don's behavior filled him with guilt and remorse because it violated his values, broke the law, and jeopardized his career and family. (Carnes, 1983, pp. 1-4)
Sexual addiction in women manifests itself in "frequent dangerous sexual encounters with strangers" (Schwartz & Brasted, 1985, pp. 103-104). The following case study illustrates sexual addiction in women:
Carrie was a well respected music teacher who moonlighted at night as a singer. Dissatisfied with her career, Carrie began to pick up customers from the bars for one night stands. At first this behavior was sporadic, but then it became routine, occurring every time she sang. Carrie's con-duct made her despondent. (Carnes, 1983, pp. 17-18)
Other mental health practitioners classify a lack of sexual control as
a compulsion, comparing it to other disorders of impulse control
(Ger-shoni, 1985; Mattison, 1985; Quadland, 1985a, 1985b; Quadland & Shattls, 1987). In this view, sexual compulsion is a self or therapist-defined lack of control over sexual impulses. A desire for sex is trig-gered by anxiety. Feelings of "anxiety, loneliness, and low self-esteem" are mislabeled as "horniness," and trigger the search for a sexual encounter. Sexual activity temporarily reduces these anxious feelings; however, a temporary boost to self-esteem is soon replaced by guilt and remorse over the sexual activity, which rekindles the feelings of anxiety and the cycle of compulsion. A typical example illustrates the pattern:
An individual is at home and experiences some agitation or restlessness. He labels this feeling "horniness" and decides to go out looking for sex. Immediately he is distracted from the anxiety-provoking stimulus, possibly loneliness in this case, by preparing to go out. This is the first reinforcer (a negative one) for the behavior, the removal of a painful stimulus. Positive reinforcement for the sexual behavior may be derived from the sexual encounter itself, the pleasure of the orgasm, but, perhaps even more importantly, from the affirmation of the individual's sexual, personal, or physical appeal. Unfortunately, such reinforcement is fleeting and is often accompanied by guilt or remorse. The anxiety-provoking stimuli return, tension builds, and the pattern is repeated. (Quadland & Shattls, 1987, p. 288)
The following case history of a male homosexual also illustrates sexual compulsion:
Oscar, 29, entered therapy in a desperate effort to overcome his anxiety and depression about AIDS. In his early teens he had his first sexual ex-perience. It was in a truck, out at the piers. "For years I went to the
same place until I started going to the baths. I need a lot of sex and often I'd go two or three times a week. Last winter was the worst period. I was drifting along. I hated my job-it was the pits. Nothing interested me. I couldn't stand the cold weather, either. I went to the baths every other day, until I got scared. Now I go once a week or so. I have a hard time ad-mitting that I'm hurting. I don't deal with it. Still, I don't like being alone in my apartment. When I'm alone, I immediately have the urge to take a cab and hit the baths again." (Gershoni, 1985, p. 24)
Thus, at the present time, some mental health professionals diagnose people as either sexual addicts or sexual compulsives when clients are unable to control their sexuality; that is, to stop mastur-bating, to stop having extramarital affairs or anonymous sex, or to stop purchasing and using pornography. Individuals use similar stan-dards for diagnosing themselves as sexual addicts or sexual compul-sives (Augustine Fellowship, 1986).
The Cultural and Historical Relativity of Sexual Conduct The diagnosis of sexual addiction or compulsion rests on culturally induced perceptions of what constitutes sexual impulse control. Perceptions of control over erotic impulses, however, are social con-structions. Definitions of "controlled" and "uncontrolled" sexuality are cultural inventions specific to particular societies at particular times. In any given society, sexual scripts provide the standards deter-mining erotic control and normalcy. What one society regards as being sexually "out of control" or deviant, mayor may not be viewed as such in another.
Sexual scripts (or erotic codes) are sets of norms, values, and sanc-tions that govern the erotic acts, statuses, and roles recognized by a social group (Gagnon & Simon, 1973; Laws & Schwartz, 1977, pp. 1-2). These scripts articulate the prevailing cultural definitions of sexuality, including the purposes it serves, its manner of expression, and the normalcy or deviance of various sexual patterns (Simon & Gagnon, 1977).
Different cultures articulate different sexual scripts. These dif-ferences account for the extraordinary variation in definitions of erotic normalcy and deviance (Gregersen, 1983); the same activity is defined in different ways in different cultures. Among societies with "sex-positive" erotic codes, for example, a high level and a wide variety of erotic desire and activity are regarded as sexually normal (Gregersen, 1983). Among the sex-positive people of Mangaia, casual sex with dif-ferent partners, and frequent intercourse with multiple orgasms (as many as three climaxes nightly), are perceived as sexually normal (Gagnon, 1977, pp. 10-11). In such sex-positive cultures, sexual scripts
define restricted sexual contacts and low levels of erotic desire and activity as sexually abnormal.
Sexual scripts that evolve in "sex-negative" societies contain dif-ferent standards for erotic normalcy or deviance. These societies regard extremely limited sexual contacts and low levels of sexual desire and activity as sexually normal. The sex-negative Irish (lnis Beag), for instance, consider abstinence and monogamy as normative and typically report low levels of sexual desire and low frequencies of sexual intercourse (Gregersen, p. 278). In such cultures, high levels of erotic desire and frequent and varied sexual activities are defined as sexually deviant, and as evidence of being "out of control" sexually.
In the United States, the nature of the prevailing sexual scripts determines whether or not a behavior is labeled as a psychosexual disorder or as sexually normal. Three competing erotic codes have emerged: the procreative, the relational, and the recreational (DeLamater, 1981). The procreative script, which conveys sex-negative (Judeo-Christian) norms and values, holds that sexual expres-sion is dirty, sinful, and wrong except when it occurs in marriage and for reproductive purposes. Sexual pleasure is valued, but only in the context of marriage and in the service of procreative endeavors (Szasz, 1980). This script bans all nonmarital and nonprocreative forms of erotic expression. Casual sex and frequent sexual intercourse are defined as pathological conditions, that is, instances of being out of control sexually (see "Don Juanism" and "nymphomania" in the first edition of The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 1952).
Relational and recreational erotic codes are more sex-positive and place a higher value on erotic feelings and expression. The relational script regards sexual activity as a "means of expressing and re-inforcing emotional and psychological intimacy." It prohibits sexual expression outside of committed relationships, which mayor may not involve marriage (DeLamater, 1981, p. 266). Any act is appropriate in the relational context, provided that both partners mutually approve. The recreational script, which perceives mutual pleasure as the chief purpose of sexual activity, endorses sexual contacts between mutually interested partners, even if they are total strangers, and permits them to engage in any agreed-upon act that enhances sensual pleasure. Com-mitment is not a prerequisite to sexual intimacy.
These three scripts have different definitions of control over erotic conduct. The procreative code views any nonmarital or nonprocreative sexuality as indicating a lack of sexual control; the relational code regards nonrelational sex as indicating a lack of sexual control,
where-as issues of control are irrelevant in recreational scripts, which define only nonconsensual sex as deviant.
The Context in which Addiction and Compulsion Emerged The cultural dominance of the procreative, relational, and recrea-tional codes has varied throughout modern American history. In the 1950s, the procreative code was hegemonic and was incorporated into basic institutions, including the family, law, education, religion, and medicine (Harris, 1981; Luker, 1984). Reflecting this institutionaliza-tion, mental health professionals viewed nonmarital and nonprocrea-tive sex as pathological (Szasz, 1980). The first edition of The Diag-nostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM' 1, 1952), for example, defined masturbation, fellatio, cunnilingus, homosexuality, and sexual promiscuity (e.g., "Don Juanism" and "nymphomania") as forms of mental illness. Other psychiatrists labeled prostitution and abortion similarly (Greenwald, 1958; Luker, 1984).
The rise of the counterculture and the sexual revolution of the 1960s and 1970s challenged the hegomony of the procreative ethic (Harris, 1981; Schur, 1976; Yankelovich, 1974). The libertarian ethos of the counterculture loosened normative constraints on sexuality and self-actualization, giving rise to the self-fulfillment ethic of the 1970s (Yankelovich, 1981). Many young, urban, college-educated, and middle-class Americans abandoned procreative scripts for relational or recreational scripts (Bell, 1976; Reich, 1970; Yankelovich, 1981), which changed the cultural meanings of erotic control and deviance.
As a result, the sociosexual landscape was altered fundamentally. An entire generation of men and women was exposed to sexual stan-dards that legitimized erotic experimentation. Many Americans came to view nonmarital sex, mate swapping, one-night stands, homo-sexuality, and the use of pornography as viable sexual options (Ed-wards, 1986). Legalized abortion, advances in contraceptive tech-nology, and the availability of potent antibiotics for the treatment of sexually transmitted disease weakened further the procreative code by eliminating or reducing the risk of unwanted pregnancy or sexually transmitted disease.
Against the backdrop of a (briefly) sex-positive culture, mental health professionals and sexologists re-evaluated professional defini-tions of erotic control and deviance. Influenced by the more sexually permissive relational and recreational scripts, they depathologized nonmarital and nonprocreative sex. The DSM: III (1980) no longer listed masturbation, fellatio, cunnilingus, homosexuality, Don Juanism, and nymphomania as psychosexual disorders.
Sexually permissive values, however, also provided grounds for adding new psychosexual disorders to the DSM. "Not enough" sex
and "inappropriate" sexual response became pathologized. A number of problems of living were transformed into sexual dysfunctions (Szasz, 1980), and were regarded as clinical conditions amenable to therapeutic intervention. The terms "anorgasmia" (not having orgasms), "inhibited sexual desire" ("low" levels of sexual desire), "sexual aversion" (fear of sex), "ejaculatory incompetence" (ejacu-lating "too soon"), and "erectile insufficiency" (the inability to have or maintain an erection) were coined to describe the newly discovered sex-ual dysfunctions.
By the late 1970s, however, people began to abandon recreational scripts essentially for four reasons. The medical risks posed by genital herpes, hepatitis B, and later by AIDS, and the widespread stigma-tization of those infected, were two reasons. The rise of the commit-ment ethic (Yankelovich, 1981, 1984) also weakened people's attach-ment to nonrelational patterns. Dissatisfied with the "me first-ism" implicit in the self-fulfillment ethic, many individuals adopted an ethic celebrating commitment, which placed a greater value on connected-ness to other people, institutions, and occupational structures. In the sexual realm, the new ethic led people to value obligations, fidelity, and romance between (and within) the sexes.
Finally, the radical religious right also contributed to the demise of the recreational code. Embracing Judeo-Christian standards of morali-ty, the various factions of this movement (the Moral Majorimorali-ty, Citizens for Decency, and "right-to-life" groups) vigorously attacked nonprocreative forms of sexuality and mounted campaigns against pornography, abortion, contraception, homosexuality, premarital intercourse, and sex education in the schools. The political and economic power of these right-wing religious groups has created a social climate that is increasingly hostile toward nontraditional forms of sexuality, fostering the idea that sexual expression apart from mar-riage is both dangerous and a threat to traditional family life. The genital herpes and AIDS epidemics provided further legitimacy to these claims.
Thus by the 1980s, "too much sex" rather than "not enough sex" began to emerge again as an issue of concern both to the lay public and to mental health professionals. In the permissive climate of the 1970s, it had been unthinkable to argue that there were people who were "addicted to sex" or "out of control sexually." Mattison (1985), for in-stance, stated that he first saw sexual compulsives in the 1970s but failed to diagnose them as such at the time. Carnes (1983) also writes
that he first observed sex addicts in the 1970s, but did not publish his work because sexual addiction "was an idea whose time had not come" (p. i). When Levine (1986) questioned Carnes about this statement dur-ing an interview, Carnes replied that he "did not actively champion the idea during the 1970s because he feared negative reactions from his colleagues." In the increasingly sex-negative 1980s, however, the time had come for the ideas of sexual addiction and compulsion.
In the context of national concern about drug use and addiction, sex-ually transmitted disease, teenaged pregnancy, and an ethic of commitment, "sex addicts" and "sexual compulsives" were men-tioned increasingly in professional publications and in mass media (Carnes, 1983; Gershoni, 1985; Goleman, 1984; Mott, 1986; Quadland, 1983, 1985a, 1985b; Quadland & Shattls, 1987; Saline, 1985; Schwartz & Brasted, 1985). Nonrelational sexual conduct that had been legiti-mized in the 1970s was reclassified in the 1980s as a symptom of mental disorder (Levine, 1985). "If a behavior is demedicalized [i.e., purged of pathology] but not vindicated (absolved of immortality), it becomes more vulnerable to moral attack" (Conrad & Schneider, 1980, p.211).
The Conceptual Flaws of Addiction and Compulsion
The constructionist or interactionist model of mental illness pro-vides a framework for analyzing psychosexual disorders. According to constructionists, psychosexual disorders are social constructions: that is, stigmatizing labels attached to sexual patterns that diverge from culturally dominant sexual standards (Gallagher, 1987; Szasz, 1980). There is nothing intrinsically pathological in the behavior that falls into the category of psychosexual disorders; they are defined as patho-logical only because they violate prevailing erotic norms. Rather than referring to actual clinical entities, psychosexual disorders denote forms of stigmatized erotic conduct. In this sense they are value judgments cloaked as pseudoscientific diagnosis (Szasz, 1980). By inventing and treating these "conditions," that is, by "medicalizing" morality, mental health professionals and sexologists pathologize non-normative sexual practices (Conrad & Schneider, 1980); they function as social control agents, enforcing conformity to culturally hegemonic erotic standards. The concepts of sexual addiction and sexual compul-sion provide examples of the "medicalization" of sexual conduct.
As used currently, the terms "sexual addiction" and "sexual compulsion" are value laden and conceptually flawed. Both terms employ prevailing cultural standards as the basis for determining erotic control or deviance. Consequently, people who engage in
fre-quent nonrelational sex and/or sex in inappropriate places are defined as "sex addicts" or "sexual compulsives."
Sexual Addiction
The concept of sexual addiction emerged first among members of an Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) chapter in metropolitan Boston (Augus-tine Fellowship, 1986; Goleman, 1984). A member of this group dis-covered this "condition" in the mid-1970s. Taking a cue from the philosophy and ideology of AA, he reconceptualized his frequent masturbation, impersonal sex, emotional dependency, and extra-marital affairs as manifestations of a "new" disease that he called "sex and love addiction." As he saw it, his "obsessive, compulsive, un-controllable" erotic impulses meant that he was addicted to sex and love. This addiction, in turn, compelled him to engage in nonrelational sexual activities. To "cure" himself of his "illness," he modified AA's "Twelve Steps of Recovery" program to focus on sex rather than on alcohol. He began to practice "sexual sobriety" by rejecting nonrela-tional sex for celibacy or relanonrela-tional sex. After convincing other AA members that they also suffered from this affliction, he formed the first chapter of Sex and Love Addicts Anonymous (Augustine Fellow-ship, 1986, chs. 1-2).
Professional recognition of sexual addiction appeared shortly after-ward (Edafter-wards, 1986; Goleman, 1984) in the work of Patrick Carnes (1983), an ex-prison psychologist. According to Carnes, sexual addic-tion is a "progressive form of insanity" (pp. 4-6). Sex addicts become increasingly out of touch with reality (insane) and more dangerous to themselves and others as their behavior escalates from "Level One" to "Level Three." The addiction process, which originates in low self-esteem, begins with Level One behaviors; these are tolerated widely or regarded merely as nuisances, and include multiple heterosexual relationships, use of pornography, strip show attendance, use of prostitutes, and homosexual activity (pp. 28-37). The addiction then progresses to Level Two-exhibitionism, voyeurism, obscene phone calls, and indecent liberties (pp. 37-45), and culminates in Level Three behaviors: rape, incest, and child molestation (pp. 45-51). Movement from one level to the next is fueled by the need for greater sexual thrills and excitement.
Criticisms of Sexual Addiction
The concept of sexual addiction may be criticized on a number of grounds. First, sex is not a form of addiction. Strictly speaking, addic-tion is "a state of physiological dependence on a specific substance
arising from the habitual use of that substance" (Wedin, 1984a, p. 48). Sex is an experience, not a substance. Although sexual experiences, may be "mood altering," abrupt withdrawal from sexual behavior does not lead to forms of physiological distress such as diarrhea, delirium, convulsions, or death. Vomiting induced by fear of giving up a learned pattern for dealing with anxiety (such as having sex) is not the same thing as vomiting induced by physiological withdrawal from a physically addicting substance.
In addition, as conceptualized professionally (e.g., Carnes, 1983; Schwartz & Brasted, 1985), sexual addiction is currently the only type of "addiction" in which the addict is not expected to give up her or his "drug" of choice as part of the "treatment." As long as sex is "used" in appropriate contexts (such as marriage, a committed relationship), the addict has been "cured." Note that sexual expression is condoned when it occurs in social contexts that affirm the traditional sexual order, but medicalized as an "addiction" when it falls outside existing norms.
Third, Coleman (1986) notes that research fails to document con-vincingly the existence of sexual addiction as a clinical condition. Recent attempts to include a new category of psychosexual disorder-"hyperactive sexual desire disorder" -in the third edition of The
Diag-nostic and Statistical Manual (1980) met with failure because of
disagreements over terminology. Thus sexual addiction literally does not exist.
Fourth, Carnes (1983) likens sexual addiction to "the 'athletes foot' of the mind" (p. vii), but the analogy between sexual addiction and athlete's foot is also misleading. Athlete's foot is a disease; sexual con-duct is a behavior, whose meaning is mediated through cultural filters.
Fifth, to the extent that sex addicts actually exist and are in fact in-sane, one would expect psychological tests to reveal clear-cut dif-ferences between the mental states of sex addicts and those of non-addicts. Quadland (1985a) compared the psychological profiles of "sex-ual compulsives" to those of matched controls seeking general psycho-therapy and found only one significant difference between the two groups: noncompulsives were more likely than compulsives to experi-ence positive feelings of love and relaxation in a sexual context. In later work, Quadland and ShattIs (1987) argued that:
The research reported here supports the hypothesis that persons who have difficulties with sexual control are no more neurotic than people who present themselves for psychotherapy for other conflictual life issues. This finding challenges the many anecdotal reports which attempt to associate a lack of sexual control with neuroticism or psychoticism. (p. 291)
Sixth, moralism is another problem associated with the sexual addic-tion concept. A major but unmenaddic-tioned common denominator links all the behaviors on all three levels: they are divorced from-or not in-tended for-procreation. Moreover, from a traditional perspective, none of these patterns should occur (or be necessary) in a committed, monogamous, heterosexual relationship. Carnes's notion of levels of addiction is a classic instance of moral judgment parading as scientific fact.
Seventh, subjectivity is also an issue in the question of sexual addic-tion. The signs of sexual addiction-secrecy, abusiveness, painfulness, and emptiness (Carnes, 1983, p. 158)-are subjective, value laden assessments rendered from a moralistic perspective toward sexuality. Most couples, for example, keep their sex lives secret. They may make love to overcome feelings of loneliness or depression. One partner may agree to an act that he or she considers degrading because he or she perceives that it is immensely meaningful to the other person. Finally, they may feel empty afterward because the lovemaking did not dispel feelings of loneliness or depression. Thus, according to Carnes's model, the behavior of many conventional people would be labeled as sexually addictive.
Finally, the characteristics that trigger and fuel the addictive process-preoccupation, ritualization, compulsive sexual behavior, and despair (Carnes, 1983, p. 9)-are equally subjective and value laden. Each of these characteristics could just as well describe the intense passion of courtship or the sexual routines of conventional couples.
For example, partners who desire sex become engrossed with thoughts of sex with their loved one. Upon retiring they kiss, touch, and drift into "their own" personal ritual for sex, which intensifies the preoccupation and adds arousal and excitement. In time they engage in sexual intercourse, the goal of their preoccupation and ritualization. If one partner does not achieve orgasm, they experience "despair." They feel powerless to do anything about their occasional, unpredict-able anorgasmia. Whereas a clinician or a counselor would probably recommend sex therapy, Carnes's model would characterize this pattern as a sign of sexual addiction.
Carnes undermines the validity of his own argument when he acknowledges that "the intoxication of young love is what the addict attempts to capture" (Carnes, 1983, p. 10). We need only examine the books in the "Sex and Marriage" section of any local bookstore to con-clude that "sex addicts" are not the only people who enjoy "the pur-suit, the hunt, the search, and the suspense heightened by the unusual" in the sexual realm (Carnes, 1983, p. 10).
Sexual Compulsion
The concept of sexual compulsion emerged first in the professional literature in the writings of Michael Quadland (1983), a sex therapist who works with self-identified sexually compulsive gay males. Quadland (1985a) defines sexual compulsion as a "lack of control over one's sexual behavior" (p. 122). The major symptom of sexual compul-sion is the individual's (or therapist's) perception that he or she is "out of control" sexually.
However, when the concept of sexual compulsion is expanded to in-clude perceptions of control, the problems of subjectivity and moralism are created in the same fashion as the concept of sexual addiction. Thus, the boundary between "being in control sexually" and "being out of control sexually" depends on the therapist's value orientation and purposes.
Consider the following example. A young man has been unsuccessful in his attempts to stop masturbating three times a week. He read that sex can be addictive, began to worry about his behavior, and sought therapy as a result. Is his behavior addictive? Is it compulsive? Or does it reflect the influence of conservative sexual beliefs about what constitutes typical sexual behavior? Depending on the perspective, the young man's behavior is all these things. Similarly, when Rowland (1986) asked Quadland what "being out of control sexually" meant, Quadland replied that it depended on the clinician's "value judgment about what is normal sexual behavior" (p. 45).
Regardless of how the concepts of sexual addiction or sexual compul-sion are defined, they contain implicit comparisons to hegemonic erotic standards (Coleman, 1986; Wedin, 1984b, 1985). As applied presently, these concepts merely pathologize behaviors that diverge from the erotic standards held by the wider society (Levine, 1985).
Second, Quadland not only uses the term in a value laden fashion, but distorts the intended meaning of the compulsion concept. Barth and Kinder (1987, p. 21) argue that the use of the compulsion concept in the context of sexuality is "inconsistent with either of the DSM-Ill's (1980) two usages of the term 'compulsive'." The character-istics assigned to "sexual compulsives," for example, are not familiar to those of people labeled as having a "compulsive personality dis-order" (e.g., perfectionism). According to the second use of the term, people classified as having an "obsessive-compulsive disorder" derive little or no pleasure from the compulsive pattern; it functions
to produce or prevent some future event or situation. Since the [sexual] behavior is intended to be an escape from presently existing anxiety rather than from some future event, and since the behavior is
intrinsi-cally enjoyable, it should not be considered or labeled as a compulsion. (Barth & Kinder, 1987, p. 21)
Thus, strictly speaking, there is no such thing as sexual compulsivity. Third, Quadland (1985a, 1985b; Quadland & Shattls, 1987) and others (Carnes, 1983; Coleman, 1986) regard anxiety as the primary cause of sexual compulsion: "Sexual activity functions to reduce anxiety often related to issues of loneliness, low self-esteem, poor inter-personal relationships and fears of intimacy" (Quadland, 1985a, p. 122). Yet when Quadland tested this hypothesis by asking self-defined sexual compulsives to indicate the nature of their feelings just before having sex, the results did not support the hypothesis. The sexual compulsives in his study did not experience significantly higher levels of frustration, anxiety, or loneliness before having sex than did the matched controls with whom they were compared. Nevertheless, Quadland continues to regard anxiety as the basis for sexual compul-sion.
Incidentally, it is not surprising that Quadland's research failed to obtain significant differences between the affective states of so-called sexual compulsives and those of noncompulsives. There are a variety of ways to minimize negative feeling states by, for example, working, praying, parenting, or having sex. To label these learned responses as compulsions, however, is to render a moral judgment rather than a scientific description. The criteria used to distinguish occupational commitment from "workaholism," religious devoutness from religious fanaticism, and involvement with sex from sexual dependency are arbitrary and biased, perhaps announcing the investigator's subjec-tive values rather than reflecting scientific objectivity.
Conclusion
Taking an interactionist approach to mental illness, we suggested that sexual compulsion and sexual addiction are therapeutic construc-tions (i.e., stigmatizing labels attached to behaviors that diverge from prevailing erotic standards). There is nothing intrinsically patho-logical in the conduct that is presently labeled as sexual compulsive or addictive; these behaviors have assumed pathological status only because powerful groups are beginning to define them as such. Rather than referring to actual clinical entities, the terms "sexual compulsion" or "sexual addiction" refer to learned patterns of behavior that are stigmatized, thereby suggesting that the concepts of sexual compulsion and sexual addiction are value judgments parading as therapeutic diagnoses (Le., pseudoscientific euphemisms used to describe people who engage in nonnormative sex).
The twin concepts of sexual addiction and sexual compulsion emerged in response to shifts in the wider sociosexual landscape. The health threats associated with genital herpes, hepatitis B, and AIDS, national concern about drug use, addiction, and teenage pregnancy, a renewed interest in committed relationships, and the rise of politically powerful right-wing religious groups altered the societal values surrounding nonrelational sex. In response, some mental health pro-fessionals and members of sexual "self-help" groups came to regard people who engage in frequent sex, nonrelational sex, or sex in "in-appropriate" settings as sex addicts or sexual compulsives.
On the other hand, we do not deny the existence of people who find it difficult to manage their sexuality within the normative boundaries mandated by the wider culture. We also acknowledge that some people learn to depend on sex as a means of coping with problematic issues. Finally, we do not deny the existence of ego-dystonic sexuality, the idea that people may be highly dissatisfied with the fashion in which they manage their sexuality. However, despite these acknowledge-ments, we maintain that "sexual addicts" and "sexual compulsives" do not possess clinical conditions that set them apart from nonaddicts and noncompulsives. They differ in external behavior rather than in in-ternal make-up.
Sexual conduct is a learned behavior; it expresses a person's overall lifestyle. Thus the so-called sexual compulsives and addicts express and manage their sexuality in ways that violate prevailing societal expectations. Because these learned patterns of sexual conduct are an integral part of many people's lives, abandoning them and substi-tuting new patterns is difficult. Yet all people experience problems of daily living-loneliness, guilt, shame, anxiety, and low self-esteem-at various times and places. In their discomfort they seek means of reducing these unpleasant feelings. They may learn to alleviate them through work, prayer, parenting, intimate friendships, or sex, be-haviors that are valued to different degrees by the wider culture. People who have learned to depend on sexual release as a means of dealing with anxiety or loneliness might be described more accurately as "sex dependents."
The invention of sexual addiction and sexual compulsion as "diseases" threatens the civil liberties of sexually variant peoples. As we have seen, the definitions of sexual addiction and compulsion are highly subjective and value laden. Not surprisingly, such concepts can be (and have been) used to pathologize unconventional erotic activi-ties. Consequently, mental health professionals must remain cautious about endorsing concepts which may serve as "billy clubs" for driving the erotically unconventional into the traditional sexual fold.
References
American Psychiatric Association. (1952). The diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association.
American Psychiatric Association. (1980). The diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (3rd ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association. Augustine Fellowship. (1986). Sex and love addicts anonymous. Boston: The Augustine
Fellowship.
BARTH, R. J., & KINDER, B. R. (1987). The mislabeling of sexual compulsion. Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy, 13, 15-23.
BECKER, H. S. (1963). Outsiders: Studies in the sociology of deviance. New York: Free Press.
BELL, D. (1976). The cultural contradictions of capitalism. New York: Basic Books. CARNES, P. (1983). Out of the shadows: Understanding sexual addiction. Minneapolis,
MN: CompCare Publications.
COLEMAN, E. (1986). Sexual compulsion vs. sexual addiction: The debate continues. SIECUS Report, 14, 7-10.
CONRAD, P., & SCHNEIDER, J. W. (1980). Deviance and medicalization: From badness to sickness. St. Louis, MO: C. V. Mosby.
DAVIS, N. J., & ANDERSON, B. (1983). Social control: The production of deviance in the modern state. New York: Irvington.
DELAMATER, J. (1981). The social control of sexuality. Annual Review of Sociology, 7, 261-290.
EDWARDS, S. (1986). A sex addict speaks. SIECUS Reports, 14, 1-3.
FLETCHER, C. R., MANNING, P. K., & SMITH, J. O. (1974). The labeling theory and mental illness. In P. M. Roman & H. M. Trice (Eds.), Explorations in psychiatric sociology. Philadelphia, P A: F. A. Davis.
GAGNOl'<, J. H. (1977). Human sexualities. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman.
GAGNON, J. H., & SIMON, W. (1973). Sexual conduct: The social sources of human sexuality. Chicago: Aldine.
GALLAGHER, B. J. (1987). The sociology of mental illness. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
GERSHONl, y. (1985, February 11-24). Overcoming sexual compulsion. New York Native, pp. 24, 28-29.
GOLEMA:'\, D. (1984, October 16). Some sexual behavior viewed as an addiction. New York Times, pp. Cl, C9.
GOVE, W. (1970). Societal reaction as an explanation of mental illness. American Sociological Review, 35, 873-884.
GREGERSEN, E. (1983). Sexual practices: The story of human sexuality. New York: Franklin Watts.
GREENWALD, H. (1958). The call girl: A social and psychoanalytic study. New York: Ballantine.
HARRIS, M. (1981). America now: The anthropology of a changing culture. New York: Simon & Schuster.
LAING, R. D. (1967). The politics of experience. New York: Ballantine.
LAWS, J. L., & SCHWARTZ, P. (1977). Sexual scripts: The social construction of female sexuality. Hinsdale, IL: Dryden Press.
LEVINE, M. P. (1985). Sexual compulsion: A critical appraisal. Paper presented at the Annual Meetings of the Eastern Region of the Society for the Scientific Study of Sex, Philadelphia, P A.
LEVINE, M. P. (1986, April 14). An interview with Patrick Carnes. Golden Valley, MN: Unpublished manuscript.
LUKER, K. (1984). Abortion and the politics of motherhood. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
MATTISON, A. M. (1985). Group treatment of sexually compulsive gay and bisexual men. Paper presented at the Annual Meetings of the Eastern Region of the Society for the Scientific Study of Sex, Philadelphia, P A.
MECHANIC, D. (1969). Mental health and social policy. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
MOTT, P. (1986, June 20). Giving hope to sufferers of sexual addiction. Los Angeles Times, pp. 1,23-24.
MUMFORD, E. (1983). Medical sociology. New York: Random House.
QUADLAND, M. C. (1983, November 7-20). Overcoming sexual compulsion. New York Native, pp. 25-26.
QUADLAND, M. C. (1985a). Compulsive sexual behavior: Definition of a problem and an approach to treatment. Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy, 11, 121-132.
QUADLAND, M. C. (1985b, February 11-24). Compulsive sexuality and sexual freedom. New York Native, p. 26.
QUADLAND, M. C., & SHATTLS, W. D. (1987). AIDS, sexuality, and sexual control. Jour-nal of Homosexuality, 14, 277-298.
REICH, C. A. (1970). The greening of America. New York: Random House.
ROWLAND, C. (1986, January 21). Reinventing the sex maniac. The Advocate, pp. 43-49. SALINE, C. (1985, February). Indecent obsession. Philadelphia, Gay News, pp. 100-110. SCHEFF, T. J. (1984). Being mentally ilL· A sociological theory (2nd ed.). New York:
Aldine.
SCHUR, E. (1976). The American awareness trap: Self-absorption instead of social change. New York: McGraw-Hill.
SCHUR, E. (1979). Interpreting deviance: A sociological introduction. New York: Harper
& Row.
SCHWARTZ, M. F., & BRASTED, W. S. (1985). Sexual addiction. Medical Aspects of Human Sexuality, 19, 103-107.
SIMON, W., & GAGNON, J. H. (1977). Sexual scripts. Society, 22, 53-60.
SZASZ, T. (1970). Ideology and insanity: Essays on the psychiatric dehumanization of man. Garden City, NY: Anchor Books.
SZASZ, T. (1980). Sex by prescription. New York: Penguin Books.
WEDIN, R. W. (1984a). The sexual compulsion movement. Christopher Street, 8, 48-53. WEDIN, R. W. (1984b, April 9-22). The need for anonymous sex: A critique of the AA
Approach. New York Native, pp. 3-6.
WEDIN, R. W. (1985, April 22-May 5). Another way around. New York Native, pp. 22-23, 48.
YANKELOVICH, D. (1974). The new morality: A profile of American youth. New York: McGraw-Hill.
YANKELOVICH, D. (1981). New rules: Searching for self-fulfillment in a world turned up-side down. New York: Random House.
